Posted by: Kory Raftery

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

The Pentagon will release its quadrennial defense review on Monday and early accounts claim the U.S. military will list global warming as a threat to national security. The writers are expected to call the issue an “instability accelerant” that could pose great danger to American troops on foreign soil. "Climate change is a factor that interacts with other trends, principally weak governance, poor economies and population growth, to drive states toward instability, which can, in turn, spawn a range of security challenges," the researchers said in the paper.

President Obama formally embraced the Copenhagen Accord, stating the U.S. will aim for a 17 percent emissions cut in carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming by 2020. But the president warned that the goal was conditional on other countries also submitting their pollution-cutting targets to the United Nations. The condition was likely aimed at fence-sitters in Congress who do not want to see the United States commit to steps on fighting global warming unless other major polluters like China and India go along.

Scientists say rising seawaters are causing the lifeline of the ancient Egyptians to expand, raising havoc in Egypt by turning the Nile Delta into a salty marsh and forcing farmers off their lands. To combat rising sea levels, the farmers who have decided to stay and fight are importing sand to stave off the salty sea in an effort to protect their land and their crops. Experts claim even a small rise to sea levels over the next 15 years would flood 200 square kilometers and displace 500,000 people, effectively killing 70,000 agricultural jobs.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

 Everyone knows that "sustainable" is good, but what exactly is it? Corporate Knights, a Canadian-based magazine for "clean capitalism," has come up with a comprehensive definition--and it announced yesterday that Pacific Gas and Electric Company ranks second on its Global 100 list of sustainable large companies, right behind GE.

Working with three strategic partners--Inflection Point Capital Management, Legg Mason's Global Currents Investment Management and Phoenix Global Advisors LLC--Corporate Knights came up with what they call the "international gold standard" for sutainability indexes. It summarizes 11 separate measures, including energy productivity (sales divided by energy consumption), water productivity, leadership diversity, R&D intensity and transparency.

Announcing the magazine's findings at Davos World Economic Forum, editor-in-chief Toby Heaps said that to be considered sustainable, companies must "squeeze four times more wealth out of every resource they use."

Heaps explained the significance of the new global ranking: “By using clear metrics to show investors which companies stand out from their peers, we hope to create a virtuous cycle where the most sustainable companies attract the most capital and earn the best returns.”

Although U.S. companies lead the list, they comprise only 12 of the 100. The United Kingdom dominated with 24; Canada and Australia took the bronze medal with 9 each.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy and the environment caught our attention this week:

Solar energy companies and relief organizations are helping Haiti to recover from the devastating earthquake, supplying solar panels to power lighting, water purification systems, ovens, mobile phones, laptop computers and other devices. Sun Ovens International is sending stand-alone and commercial solar ovens to Port-au-Prince. Solar panel maker Sol Inc. is providing solar lighting at an orphanage, relief camps and hospitals, while SolarWorld is powering 10 water purification systems. Faith Comes by Hearing, a provider of audio Bibles, is partnering with a relief organization to distribute 600 sun-powered Bibles.

Iceland is the world leader in pollution control and natural resource management, according to the 2010 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) developed by environmental experts at Columbia and Yale. The EPI, presented at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, ranks 163 countries on performance across 25 metrics. Iceland registered high scores on environmental public health, controlling greenhouse gas emissions and reforestation. Other top performers include Switzerland, Costa Rica, Sweden and Norway. The U.S. was ranked 61 "with strong results on some issues, such as provision of safe drinking water and forest sustainability, and weak performance on other issues including greenhouse gas emissions and several aspects of  local air pollution."

The Olympics are embracing recycled materials for the eco-friendly 2010 Vancouver Winter Games and London's Summer Games in 2012. Medalists at the Vancouver Olympics and Paralympics Winter Games will receive gold, silver and bronze medals containing metal from recycled TVs, computers and keyboards. London's Metropolitan Police Department is melting down confiscated guns and knives with some of the metal going to help construct the Olympic Stadium in East London. 

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

PG&E has become the first utility to join the American Wind Wildlife Institute (AWWI),  a national organization committed to peaceful coexistence between wind energy and wildlife.

The organization was founded in late 2008 by 20 environmental groups, state wildlife agencies and wind energy companies to focus their collective expertise on protecting wildlife through research, mapping, mitigation and public education on best practices in wind farm siting and habitat protection.

Members include Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, BP Wind Energy, Clipper Windpower Inc., Environmental Defense Fund, GE Energy, Horizon Wind Energy, Iberdrola Renewables, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and others--but until now, no electric utilities.

PG&E's decision to become a member reflects the utility's longstanding use of wind power--dating back at least to the 1980s. Wind power is sure to represent a growing share of the utility's generation as PG&E continues taking aggressive steps to add to its portfolio of clean energy.

In addition, PG&E announced last month plans to buy and operate a major wind production facility in Kern County. The proposed Manzana Wind Project, if approved and built, would provide enough energy to meet the needs of about 100,000 average homes. The project will undergo careful environmental reviews that consider, among other things, its potential impact on birds and other wildlife.

PG&E's membership in AWWI also reflects the utility's heightened interest in environmental stewardship. Two decades ago, PG&E became a founding member of the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The utility's Avian Protection Plan, which includes retrofitting thousands of power poles to make them safer for birds, is considered a national model.

Some studies suggest that wind farms cause a tiny percentage of bird deaths compared to vehicles, buildings, and even communications towers. But concerns over the high rate of bird kills in Altamont Pass and bat deaths in East Coast wind plants have prompted the wind industry and its allies to fund significant research on the siting and operation of turbines to minimize risks to wildlife. AWWI's exclusive attention to that issue should help advance this collaborative effort as the wind industry ramps up its installations.

AWWI Vice President Stu Webster said the organization is still in the "nurturing stages." Its early focus is on efforts to map wind and wildlife resources so developers can make more informed siting and mitigation decisions.  

One of its biggest and most important initiatives will be to find ways to share proprietary data across the industry to help stakeholders better assess wildlife issues. "The legal and competitive issues need to be harmonized with the need for data to improve our scientific understanding," Webster said. "NGOs, academia, government agencies and industry all want this. It's critically necessary to answer the questions that have been raised."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The U.S. wind industry hurtled forward at gail force last year, flying in the face of of the nation's deep recession. But California, once the leader in wind energy, seemed caught in the doldrums.

The American Wind Energy Association reported yesterday  that the U.S. wind industry "broke all previous records by installing nearly 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity in 2009," thanks in part to stimulus from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In fact, wind was on par last year with natural gas as a source of new generation--a major feat for the renewable power industry.

But little of that growth took place in California. The Golden State added only 277 MW of wind capacity, compared to 2,292 MW in Texas and 879 MW in Iowa. California still ranks third in wind power, but its growth of just over 10 percent last year was dwarfed by national growth of 39 percent.

I'm not the only one who was struck by our state's sluggish performance. Bill Opalka, editor of Renewablesbiz.com, commented,

It's hard to miss that the former leader, California, the place that kept wind on the map for 20 years, is falling further and further behind. . . . If the state with the most aggressive mandates in the country has trouble matching sparsely populated states - and those happen to be ones without mandates - what chance does California have it making its deadlines? A question worth asking, even if it's one beyond the scope of a report like this one.

I asked Nancy Rader, executive director of the California Wind Energy Association (CalWEA),  for some perspective on the industry's difficulties in our fair state.  She noted that it was inevitable that other states, many of which have superior wind resources, would begin catching up to California.

Nonetheless, some of our wounds are self-inflicted. "It is very hard to build in California because we are waiting for transmission development and it takes years to slog through the permitting process, whether you are on private or federal land," Rader said.

Partly as a result, Rader said, demand for wind energy in California is spawning development in surrounding states like Oregon and Washington.

The good news is that a new Tehachapi transmission line being built in Southern California should enable a host of new wind projects by 2013--including one announced by PG&E.

"Hopefully within five years we will see California wind capacity more than double because of the Tehachapi transmission line," Rader said.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Clean energy enjoys huge political support. Climate change legislation, by contrast, is on life support. What critics don't realize is that putting a price on carbon emissions is the surest way to drive investment in energy efficiency, renewable energy, smart grids and other clean tech innovations.

Concerned by fierce opposition to climate legislation from vocal critics, some members of Congress have called for sidelining the climate bill and focusing only on a new energy bill to promote "innovation and new technology."

That would make every politician's life easier. But as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has noted, innovation doesn't come from thin air--it needs the right market environment:

If you separate climate from energy reform, you slow your ability to create those clean jobs because every market expert tells you those energy reforms can't take hold unless you price carbon. Unless you do something comprehensive you're just going a more expensive, less effective route and you'll keep trailing other countries. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., gets it as well. As he told a recent gathering of the geothermal industry, "Most importantly, Congress needs to send the market a clear signal on the costs of global warming pollution to drive far greater investments into geothermal and every other form of renewable energy and energy efficiency." 

Businesses have been saying the same message, loud and clear. In a recent ad signed by dozens of major companies, including PG&E, corporate leaders warned that "today's uncertainty surrounding energy and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions that American businesses are poised to make. We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate."

The same logic has also motivated major automakers to call for higher gas taxes, so consumers will buy smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, including hybrids.

Let's face facts. It will be many years, if ever, before renewable energy and clean nuclear power are as cheap as coal-fired power. Not until the price of coal reflects the environmental damage it inflicts will alternatives stand on their feet without massive government subsidies. That's why legislation to stabilize the Earth's climate is so critical to creating the right climate for new investments in clean energy.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Here at PG&E, we (like most Californians) have a love-hate attitude toward the rain. Like bitter medicine, it's not enjoyable in the moment, but deep down we know it's good for us.

Wind-driven precipitation knocks trees into our power lines, topples power poles and floods our facilities, creating outages and public safety risks. In fact, last week's storms impacted service to 1.5 million customers and damaged more than 500 poles, 250 miles of electrical lines and 800 transformers.

About the only good thing we can say during a storm is it brings out the best in our heroic repair crews and our customers, who (mostly) suffer service disruptions with patience and understanding.

But come spring and summer, if we haven't had enough rain, we at PG&E start to miss the clean, efficient hydropower driven by all the water in our mountain rivers and reservoirs. We also miss the wet ground that keeps vegetation from drying out and becoming tinder for giant wildfires that threaten our facilities and our customers' homes and businesses.

Before the onslaught of storms last week, California was headed into another drought year--its third in a row.

Just before the storms hit the state, the Department of Water Resources painted a bleak picture of continuing drought conditions:

This year's precipitation as of mid-January 2009 is well below average, with 20-30" of additional rain and snow needed to produce average runoff. The previous two water years, October 1,  2006 thru September 30, 2008 left a deficit of nearly 28" of precipitation in the Northern and Central Sierra, source of much of our water supply. . . . Statewide average reservoir levels are 68% of average for this date.  Last year at this time they were at 80% of average.

And the bottom line: "As of January 1, 2009, the statewide runoff is forecast to be dry to critically dry this year."

The result of the prolonged drought was to reduce PG&E's hydropower generation from 13,800 gigawatt-hours in 2006 to 7,700 GWh in 2007 and 7,900 GWh in 2008. (Preliminary data suggest that 2009 was a little better, but still far below normal.) This loss of about 7 percent of our total generation had to be offset by sharply higher power purchases, mostly from natural gas-fired generators, which increased costs to customers and greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Fortunately, this picture brightened last week even as the skies darkened. According to PG&E's hydro experts:

The recent wave of severe winter storms have produced significant amounts of snow and precipitation in PG&E service areas and hydro watersheds. As a result the cumulative precipitation picture has improved substantially: The California statewide average snow water content increased from 79 percent of normal on 1/7/2010 to 107 percent of normal on 1/21/2010; PG&E's hydro-weighted precipitation, from 15 representative stations, increased from 68 percent of normal to 91 percent of normal to date. If the wet trend continues, it could lead to better-than-average annual hydro generation year.

So as you struggle with your umbrella, or sit in the dark for a few hours, take heart in knowing that all this rain may end up saving you money and sparing the environment.

Posted by: Kory Raftery

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

There's much ado about numbers when it comes to an inaccuracy regarding a 2007 United Nations (UN) report on Climate Change that predicted the disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the UN has since apologized for the typo, the body stands behind its overall finding that the glaciers are retreating and says the rest of the report is accurate, adding "small glaciers will probably disappear by the end of the century."

Two men falling on opposite sides of the global warming debate met in West Virginia at the University of Charleston as coal baron Don Blankenship and conservationist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. went head to head in a verbal bout. The 950 audience members were selected by each man's camp so it is highly unlikely anyone in the room was influenced by the debate - and neither man was willing to concede any ground on issues such as mountaintop mining, green job creation and greenhouse gases. Kennedy said surface mining helps to make West Virginia a poor state, while defacing majestic scenery, polluting air and water and shattering the quiet country existence of people who've called the mountains home for generations. Blankenship argued the mining keeps people employed, puts food on their tables and mortgage checks in the mail.

A lengthy letter to the governor of Louisiana by 32 scientists, including 27 from the state's universities, suggests he should rethink his opposition to regulation of carbon emissions. Scientists believe Louisiana's coastline is receding at alarming rates due to sea level rise, glacial melting and global warming. In December, Governor Bobby Jindal sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency demanding that it rescind its recent determination that greenhouse gases endanger present and future generations. Jindal also said the ruling could force Louisiana's jobs and industries to move overseas.  

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy and the environment caught our attention this week:

Software giant Oracle is eying smart water meters to help consumers save water and prevent projected shortages. Much like gas and electric smart meters, a water meter could deliver real-time information on consumption through a video display, and water districts could get information on leaks. The company now sells software and services to water districts as well as gas and electric utilities and sees a potential market in water meters. IBM also is looking at the water market. 

More smart news: Apple has applied for two patents that could lead to a smart home energy system to connect and manage power consumption in devices such as computers, printers, iPods and iPhones, using a home's existing wiring. If it goes ahead, Apple would join companies such as Google, Microsoft, GE and Whirlpool developing tools to control electricity use.

Smart news for public transit riders: A study by the American Public Transportation Association finds that the average citizen who commutes to work via public transit saves $9,240 a year compared to commuting by car. The study compiled the average cost of taking public transit compared to costs of gas, tolls, parking, insurance and maintenance. Of the top 20 transit cities, New York was the No. 1 saver at $13,765, Boston second at $12,362 and San Francisco in third place at $12,156.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

When is the last time Corporate America, Big Labor and the environmental movement agreed on anything?

Try today.

An ad running in today's Wall Street Journal, and slated to run on the Politico web site as well, brings together leaders from all three groups, along with representatives from the faith-based community, in unprecedented support of "bi-partisan, national energy and climate legislation that increases our security and limits emissions, as it preserves and creates jobs."

The signers include a Who's Who of top corporations, including PG&E Corporation, BP, Campbell's, Con Edison, Dow, Duke Energy, Dupont, Ford, GE, GM, Honeywell, Shell, Siemens, Toyota and Weyerhauser.

Also signing are the cream of the labor movement, including the AFL-CIO, SEIU and United Steelworkers.

Major environmental NGOs endorsing the call to bipartisan action include Environmental Defense Fund, Nature Conservancy and NRDC.

Last but not least, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and Evangelical Environmental Network represent sectors of the faith-based community in support of national action on climate change.

As the signers note,"America faces a once-in-a-century opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions and become the world's leader in a burgeoning clean energy economy."

That's not an opportunity to be missed--but it's unfortunately also not an opportunity that can be taken for granted. In the wake of Senator-elect Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said "there's minimal enthusiasm" among members of his party for climate change legislation.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

If California solar developers think they have it bad, waiting endless months for permit reviews, consider the case of Cape Wind, the first offshore wind project proposed in the United States.

That $900 million project, sited off the coast of Cape Cod., Mass., has been in limbo for nine years while local residents, dismayed by the prospect of giant wind turbines spoiling their views of Nantucket Sound, have waged guerrilla warfare to kill it. Further delays were ensured when two Indian tribes this month persuaded the National Park Service that the project might interfere with their spiritual practices.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Wind Energy Association reported Monday that developers last year connected to the European grid 199 offshore wind turbines with a combined capacity of 577 megawatts--a third more than the entire Cape Wind project. EWEA projects that another 1,000 MW of offshore wind capacity will be added this year, continuing the dizzy pace of growth in the market. 

And that's not the half of it. Some 17 offshore wind farms are now under construction in European waters, totaling more than 3,500 MW of capacity, and 52 more have been approved with a combined capacity of more than 16,000 MW. (By way of comparison, peak demand in PG&E's service area runs about 21,000 MW.)

Much more is coming. Great Britain this month announced the winners of a third round of offshore licenses in the North Sea for up to 32,000 MW of wind power. The government expects construction to begin in 2014 and all projects to be completed by 2020. The projects could end up supplying a quarter of the country's entire electricity demand.

The United States does have a handful of small offshore wind projects under consideration off the Eastern seabord, but nothing remotely comparable to Europe. Unfortunately, the high prices that U.S. developers are seeking make some of these projects unappealing to utilities shopping for more renewable power.

If the United States could get its act together, it could potentially tap offshore wind resources totaling 900,000 megawatts, according to the Department of Energy. Polls show strong public support for projects in the Eastern seabord states with the best offshore wind potential. (California, with its deep coastal waters, is unsuited to traditional offshore turbines.) But until state and federal governments can set forth clear policies and streamline their reviews, the United States will remain an embarrassing laggard in the race to tap this enormous source of clean energy.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Sometimes the biggest blow to a new technology isn't an engineering glitch but a seemingly authoritative report proving its time hasn't come. That's exactly what happened last month, when a team of experts from the National Research Council declared that sky-high battery costs will doom plug-in electric vehicles to irrelevance for years to come.

It doesn't happen often, but the NRC experts appear to be flat wrong, according to evidence of actual battery costs compiled by CalCars and the Electrification Coalition.

"Real-world information is already a step ahead of their assumptions," CalCars claims. "Battery and auto manufacturers would not be spending tens of billions of dollars on factories to support over a dozen new plug-in vehicle models unless they saw a long-term path to low-cost, competitive components."

At the heart of the NRC's critique was the claim that battery packs today cost more than $1,000/kilowatt-hour, and that it will take a decade of engineering and production innovation to slash costs to the $400/kWh needed to make plug-in vehicles affordable to the mass market.

The truth about battery costs is closely held by manufacturers, but CalCars cites a study prepared last year by experts from the Department of Energy and Argonne National Laboratory, estimating that batteries should cost only about $300/kWh in mass production, and less than double that in modest runs of about 10,000 per year.

General Motors officials have leaked data to the media suggesting that the cost of batteries for the new Volt hybrid will be in the range of $500/kWh to $600/kWh, and will likely fall to only $300 by 2015.  A company spokesman specifically refuted the NRC's estimate of battery costs as "bloated." He added, 'Our starting point, which already costs much less than they estimate, is just the first step.'

Bottom line: as battery makers and electric vehicle manufacturers begin production, costs will indeed be high, as they were originally for personal computers, flat screen TVs, and most other new technologies. But as affluent early adopters and government subsidies create a growing market, prices should fall quickly to make these clean vehicles a strong contender in the marketplace.

Posted by: Jana Morris

"Nature Within Reach" is a slogan you may soon see on a license plate near you. That is if the California Coastal Conservancy can get the 7,500 pledges required for DMV to adopt the new plate, which was created by several environmental groups including the California Coastal Conservancy, the Bay Area Open Space Council and the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture. All proceeds from the sale and renewal of the plate will directly fund restoration, conservation and public recreational projects throughout the Bay Area.

"The program allows any individual who owns an automobile in California, to be able to purchase a special Bay Area license plate," said Bettina Ring, executive director, Bay Area Open Space Council. "The Conservancy in turn provides funding to organizations to improve public access, recreation and educational facilities and programs in and around the San Francisco Bay. The funding will protect and restore natural habitats and connect trails, parks, watersheds, scenic areas, agricultural land and other regionally significant lands."

Getting your hands on a plate is simple. Go to www.bayarealicenseplate.org then enter your current plate number, mailing address and pay with a credit card. The plates cost $50 for initial registration ($90 for personalized plates), with a $40 annual renewal fee ($70 for personalized plates). The goal is eventually to raise $1 million per year for Bay Area projects via the license plate and have more than 25,000 of the plates in circulation.

"It provides a secure, sustainable source of funding for the protection and restoration of important lands throughout the San Francisco Bay Area," Ring said. "It allows us to take care of what we already have and ensure more parks, trails, farmland and natural areas are protected for future generations.
 
The name of the plate, "Nature Within Reach," was submitted to an online survey by Brian DiGiorgio of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

For more information on the license plate project visit www.bayarealicenseplate.org.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

It's official: 2009 tied as the second hottest year on record, according to global temperature data posted today by NASA.

2005 was the hottest year and 2007 tied for second place in the NASA rankings. Overall, the last decade was the hottest ever recorded.

This year's El Nino, which promises to deliver wild and wet weather to California next week, could make 2010 even warmer. That's because El Nino events typically bring heat to the surface of the Pacific Ocean, raising the average global temperature.

As noted previously in NEXT100, the continental United States was one of the few places on earth that remained relatively cool last year--so it's no wonder skeptics about global warming abound here despite a strong scientific consensus. The same pattern repeated in December, bringing chilling cold to much of this country.

Note: not every authority agrees with NASA. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record. But NOAA agrees that the decade as a whole was the warmest.

Posted by: Kory Raftery

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

Popular music magazine Rolling Stone released a list of what it calls the "planet's worst enemies." The magazines editors have been quoted as saying they want to recognize and stand behind the scientific consensus and report on global warming honestly and incisively. The list calls out 18 prominent figures and details why the magazine feels they are detrimental to the fight against global warming.

Researchers from Michigan State University are hoping the fruits of their labor will lead to new fruits in the field and ultimately feed people in east African nations hit hard by global warming. The study will utilize a Michigan State supercomputer and resources from the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station to create a regional climate model that includes crop and water data to develop crop varieties to better withstand climate change. The New York-based Rockefeller Foundation gave a grant of $430,000 grant to Michigan State as part of its $70 million Climate Change Resilience Initiative.

The global economy may be considered flat at best by analysts but one new study shows a sector that is predicted to balloon in 2010. The reports claims considerable attention to global warming coupled with an increasing focus on energy efficiency and cost have laid the groundwork for an emerging carbon management market. The sectors predicted to be affected the most by the pressure to manage their carbon emissions are energy, manufacturing, government and retail.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy and the environment caught our attention this week:

Internet giant Google is looking at high-altitude wind power and other renewable energy sources to beat the price of coal. In a lengthy interview with Green Inc., Google green energy czar Bill Weihl says it's exploring ways to capture stronger and steadier winds at 500 to 2,000 meters or potentially up in the jet stream. Google has invested in Makani Power, a company exploring high-altitude wind using an airborne platform. Weihl says Google also is looking at concentrated solar thermal and enhanced geothermal power.

Update from our item last Friday on the controversial wind farm project proposed for offshore Cape Cod: Federal Interior Secretary Ken Salazar met with virtually all the parties to the lengthy dispute and said he plans to decide whether to approve the Cape Wind project no later than April. The project is a test of the Obama administration's commitment to renewable energy projects on public lands and off the nation's shorelines, the New York Times says. It would be the country's first major offshore wind farm.

The symbolic Doomsday Clock showing how close we are to annihilation and the end of time was set back by one minute to six minutes before midnight from five. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which maintains the clock, attributed the change to efforts by world leaders to reduce nuclear arsenals and work together on climate change. The group said a "new era of cooperation" has been helped by the election of President Obama and increased U.S. participation in international affairs.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Green doesn't get much cuter than this.

As part of its ambitious program of energy conservation and environmental stewardship, the U.S. Postal Service is experimenting in several Southern California cities, as well as parts of Arizona and South Florida, with a nifty three-wheel electric vehicle for delivering mail.

With the world's largest civilian vehicle fleet, annual travel of 1.1 billion miles and fuel costs of more than $2 billion, the USPS can make a big difference to the environment by its leadership in clean transportation technology. It has experimented with advanced diesel, ethanol, hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles, but I'm most taken by the T3 Series Electric Stand-up Vehicle, with optional solar-powered trailer, that the postal service has developed with T3 Motion, Inc. in Orange County.

T3 Motion claims the vehicles have a range of 40 miles, a maximum speed of 12 mph and a carrying capacity of 450 lbs. Its quiet operation and maneuverability make the vehicle a favorite of police forces as well. "Most importantly, it produces zero emissions and costs less than 4 cents a mile to operate," the company added in an announcement today.

The U.S. Postal Service aims to reduce its energy use 30 percent by 2015. Kudos to it for thinking outside the (four-wheel) box.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Every year the world produces 2.5 billion tons of cement, enough for 9 billion cubic yards of concrete that could pave 16 highway lanes from the Earth to the moon.

The production of all that cement, which requires heating limestone and other materials to about 2,600F, contributes as much as five percent of all CO2 emissions, making it a major cause of global warming.

As previously described in NEXT100, traditional cement companies and a growing number of startups are exploring novel production methods to radically reduce or even eliminate their net output of carbon dioxide.

Now one of the most promising--and most controversial--of those companies says it has begun to make cement on a significant scale by drawing carbon dioxide from Dynegy's huge Moss Landing power plant.

Los Gatos-based Calera claims its process for making cement actually locks up more CO2 than it produces. The manager of the Moss Plant Power Plant calls it "probably one of the best carbon-capture processes out there that we know of today." And Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, said "It changes the nature of the fight against global warming." 

Those are extravagent claims, but Calera's founder, Brent Constantz, has serious credentials. He is a consulting professor at Stanford University and founder of three previous companies. He convinced noted venture capitalist Vinod Khosla to fund his firm. And he can point to a patent issued in Australia to support some of his claims.

But a lot of people don't believe him, including cement industry rivals and, more disturbingly, fellow scientists. One of the most noted critics is Ken Caldeira, a distinguished geochemist and climate expert at the Carnegie Institution, located on Stanford's campus. 

It doesn't help that Calera's web site is notably short on technical details or that the company  has been operating at Moss Landing for over a year and a half without much in the way of public results. 

So who's right, Calera or Caldeira? Here's hoping that Calera is for real and Caldeira is uncharacteristically wrong. The world needs a game changer. But it can't wait forever to see results.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The Department of Energy today announced grants of up to $78 million to support advanced research and development of biofuels and fueling infrastructure to replace petroleum products. "By harnessing the power of science and technology, we can bring new biofuels to the market and develop a cleaner and more sustainable transportation sector," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

But only a few days ago, researchers at Rice University blasted U.S. biofuels policy, noting that despite generous subsidies--amounting to $4 billion in 2008--biofuels have replaced a mere two percent of gasoline production. The cost to consumers for biofuel was almost $2 a gallon on top of the retail price for gasoline.

Further, the report claimed, "it is uncertain whether existing biofuels production provides any beneficial improvement over traditional gasoline" in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. And the biofuels create potential hazards to human health by impeding the natural breakdown of other toxic chemicals, such as benzene, in the groundwater.

So is U.S. biofuels policy nothing more than a biofolly? Yes and no if you believe the Rice University report (which was funded by Chevron, but is consistent with many other studies). The problem isn't with biofuels in principle, but with corn-based ethanol, which accounts for nearly all current U.S. biofuel production. Growing corn to make ethanol is of debateable value because it requires extensive energy and produces greenhouse gases from soil clearing and tillage.

But if we can transition to a next generation of biofuels, based on hardy weeds, crop residues, waste wood products (such as beetle-killed trees) or even algae, the environmental benefits begin to look far brighter. Unfortunately, the economics so far look a lot dimmer--which is where the DOE's research grants may come to the rescue.

Intriguingly, one Bay Area company--Cobalt Biofuels--yesterday announced with great fanfare the launch of a facility in Mountain View to begin producing biobutenol, a versatile fuel that can be blended with gasoline or diesel and converted into jet fuel or even plastics. The company claims cost breakthroughs that will allow it to produce the fuel for only $1.40 a gallon by 2012. Biobutenol delivers more energy than ethanol and is less polluting. And, most important from an environmental standpoint, Cobalt's feedstock isn't food crops but forest waste and mill residues.

Cobalt's claims, like so many before from the biofuels industry, may prove more than a tad optimistic. But DOE and Cobalt are on the right track by moving beyond traditional corn-based ethanol to greener biofuels.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

If I were one of the army of auto marketing executives showing off new hybrid and electric vehicles at this week's Detroit auto show, I'd be smiling for the public but privately panicking.

Despite all the fawning media coverage of these fuel-efficient and climate-friendly vehicles, a chorus of naysayers are warning that few consumers will actually buy them--relegating all this fancy new technology to the scrap heap of failed investments.

Last month, a report from the National Research Council warned that the high cost of batteries will limit the number of plug-in hybrid vehicles on America's roads to only about 13 million by 2030, not enough to make more than a slight dent in the country's carbon emissions.

Last week, Boston Consulting Group piled on with a new report claiming that battery costs "are unlikely to drop enough to spark widespread adoption of  fully electric vehicles without a major breakthrough in . . . technology."

Even the clean-tech blog Earth2Tech saw fit to depress its readers with "10 signs your next car won't be electric."

So for you die-hard enthusiasts who can't bear to cede the argument without a fight, I highly recommend reading "11 Practical Reasons to Buy an Electric Car," by Nick Chambers of Gas2Org. While he acknowledges that "the vast majority of people will still drive gas-powered cars into the foreseeable future," he ticks off the many good reasons your next car should be electric after all.

Start with the fact that you won't need to spend nearly as much time making friends with your mechanic: "By removing the engine, exhaust system, emissions controls, and the many other little bits that are traditionally associated with a combustion-powered car, then replacing them with a motor that has one moving part, some batteries, and associated fans and coolant, the chances that you'll end up in the service department are drastically reduced."

Nor will you need to crawl under your car to change the oil every few thousand miles. "Likely the only major things you'll need to get regularly serviced on an EV will be a coolant flush and battery change every 100,000 miles or so," Chambers points out.

You'll stand to save countless trips to the gas station as well. If you've got a garage, and install a suitable outlet, "you may never have to make a trip somewhere to 'fill' your car up again."

The cost per mile of electricity is liable to be far less than you pay now for gasoline--and far more stable as well. You won't depend on foreign imports of oil from insecure lands to power your car.

And as you glide down the road, with no rumble from the engine, you can take quiet satisfaction from knowing that you are doing your part for the environment.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Stop the presses! Scientists report that pulverizing mountains to remove coal can damage environment!

All kidding aside, last week's publication in the prestigious journal Science of a "blockbuster" new study on the irreversible environmental impacts of mountaintop mining--a widespread practice in Appalachia--was a sobering and long overdue cry of alarm from an eminent group of hydrologists, ecologists and engineers, including several members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Obvious as their conclusions might seem, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continue to permit mining companies to strip mountaintops of their forests and topsoil, blast them with explosives and then push rock and toxic materials into adjacent valleys and streams in order to expose coal deposits.

"We now know that surface mining has extraordinary consequences for both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems," said Dr. Keith Eshleman of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, one of the co-authors. "Notwithstanding recent attempts to improve reclamation, the immense scale of mountaintop mining makes it unrealistic to think that true restoration or mitigation is possible with current techniques." 

Lost in some of the reporting about habitat destruction was the team's finding that such mining practices seriously harm human health due to air and water pollution.

As the study noted, "Adult hospitalizations for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension are elevated as a function of county-level coal production, as are rates of mortality, lung cancer, and chronic heart, lung, and kidney disease."

Another careful study published last year, and cited in the Science article, estimated that coal mining in Appalachia results in somewhere between 1,700 and 2,900 "excess deaths" each year. The authors of that study noted that coal mining contributes about $8 billion annually to the region's economy--but exacts an economic cost to its inhabitants of over $40 billion a year.

And that's not counting the cost to human health from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, radioactive particles and other pollutants caused by burning the coal.  (In fairness, cheap coal-fired power indirectly saves some lives, as well, by making possible more economic food refrigeration and other benefits.)

The National Mining Association dismissed the new study as "an advocacy piece, rather than independent science." The authors noted that the paper underwent rigorous peer review by other experts in the field.

Note: In 2006, California enacted a law that essentially prohibits utilities from purchasing any additional coal-fired power. Only a few percent of PG&E's power comes from legacy coal-fired sources.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Last May, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham called Barack Obama "Spock with global sex appeal."  Since then, the brainy president with abs has put his sex appeal to good use, championing energy efficiency investments to produce jobs, keep the environment clean and promote energy independence.

In June, as he announced new federal standards to making lighting more efficient, President Obama said, "Now, I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses." He estimated that new standards would save consumers up to $4 billion a year in energy costs. 

Last month, reviving that theme, President Obama declared that home insulation is "sexy stuff" because it saves money. Appearing at a Home Depot store, Obama called on Congress to enact more building retrofit incentives, on top of the $5 billion allocated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to weatherize low-income homes and the $300 million to promote energy-efficient appliances.

It remains to be seen how titillated ordinary homeowners have become by R-values and Energy Star ratings--though I'll bet they seem sexier now with winter temperatures plunging to extreme lows across the country--but swooning venture capitalists have enthusiastically embraced Obama's message.

An annual survey of worldwide clean tech venture funding, issued last week by Deloitte and the Cleantech Group, reported that funding of companies focused on the business of energy efficiency hit a record billion dollars last year--a period that saw a one-third decline in overall clean-tech investing.

"I know it sounds odd that VCs are putting money into things like windows and drywall, but that's where the excitement's been for the last year," said Kevin Surace, chief executive officer of Serious Materials, a Sunnyvale company that makes efficient building materials.

"This past year is a reflection of why energy efficiency makes sense," added one of Serious Materials' funders. "Investments that have payback periods less than two years tend to be what gets invested in during a recession."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The solar industry could get a welcome stimulus this year if the California Public Utilities Commission approves an application PG&E filed in February 2009 to develop a series of solar photovoltaic projects in the 1-20 megawatt range, totaling 250 MW over five years. In the interim, PG&E is building a 2 MW pilot plant at its Vaca-Dixon substation.

Total cost of the program, if approved, would run about $1.5 billion. That should create some serious jobs along with a lot of clean energy.

In anticipation of a ruling that could come as early as next month, PG&E plans later this month to request information from potential suppliers to qualify bidders for everything from providing PV modules to installing complete PV systems. Then, if the CPUC ruling is favorable, the utility will be able to move ahead quickly with getting bids and putting shovels in the ground.

Interested suppliers can obtain more information on PG&E's website.
 

Posted by: Kory Raftery

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

The majority of the world's largest investment managers are not factoring in climate-related trends when making investment decisions. A new report released by Ceres surveyed the world's 500 largest asset managers and claims they are ignoring "hidden risks" in the trillions of dollars of investment portfolios they oversee. The survey claims companies that are not prepared to adopt climate policies will face growing regulatory, litigation and competitive issues. The study also notes that close to half of the fund managers surveyed reported their clients did not ask them to consider climate risks or opportunities when making investments.

Global warming could shorten Rocky Mountain winters and put the region's forests in danger of severe forest fires and insect infestation. Those predictions come from a University of Montana professor and international climate change expert who says the real issue for Montana, Wyoming and Idaho is a longer dry season and a lack of water. He claims the shorter winters will result in fewer days of snow and earlier peak snowmelt, resulting in a lack of water for local rivers and reserves.

New research suggests the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is rising. Methane is said to be 25 times more potent than CO2 and studies recently completed near the northern tip of Russia and on the coast of New Zealand link global warming with the increases. Specific causes listed in the studies are unusually high temperatures in the Arctic and emissions from forest fires. In addition, scientists believe methane release from frozen depositories is happening at a faster rate than previously predicted, which may further accelerate global warming.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy and the environment caught our attention this week:

Worldwide venture capital funding in green technology companies fell 33 percent in 2009 to $5.6 billion amid the global recession, according to a survey by consulting firms Deloitte and Cleantech Group. Investments in solar power plunged 64 percent but the industry remained the top green tech sector and accounted for 21 percent, or $1.2 billion, of total investment. Energy efficiency companies drew $1 billion in venture financing and transportation ventures took in $1.1 billion. The top three green investors were Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, SAIL Venture Partners and RockPort Capital Partners.

Specialized California license plates with environmental themes are failing to attract very many takers. A plate featuring a bear and a mountain would fund projects of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy but only 256 copies have sold. A Golden Gate Bridge plate sponsored by the California Coastal Conservancy has only 455 takers. Commemorative plates costing $50 a year help pay for new parks, hiking trails, beach restoration and other projects but the bad economy and gas prices are hurting sales. "For a lot of people these days, specialized plates are a luxury," says a spokeswoman for the Department of Motor Vehicles.

A controversial wind farm project proposed off Cape Cod may see further delays after the National Park Service ruled that Nantucket Sound was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Two Massachusetts Indian tribes said 130 wind turbines would thwart their spiritual ritual of greeting the sunrise and disturb ancestral burial grounds, the New York Times reports. The wind project, in the works since 2001, is strongly supported by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and opposed by Cape Cod homeowners and boaters. The late Senator Edward Kennedy, whose Hyannis Port compound looks out on the proposed site, was the project's most powerful opponent.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Last month, NEXT100 described a simple but remarkable agricultural technique taking root in arid and impoverished West Africa--the cultivation of crops in pits, called zai holes, that store water and prevent erosion.

Now a team of Stanford-led experts report on another promising innovation in the region: Solar-powered pumps in the West African country of Benin are dramatically increasing farm yields and incomes for desperately poor rural families who get by on just a dollar a day.  

Malnutrition in the area is serious because water is scarce and the deep groundwater makes irrigation impractical without expensive and polluting diesel-powered pumps.

The Benin Solar Irrigation Project was made possible by assistance from an American NGO, the Solar Electric Light Fund, which promotes electrification of poor villages that are off the grid, mostly in Asia and Africa. In 2007, it began a program to electrify an entire district of northern Benin with photovoltaic panels to serve drip irrigation systems, schools, clinics and community centers.

To gauge the effectiveness of the investment, it worked with Stanford University's Program on Food Security and the Environment to rigorously study the results of the irrigation program.

The researchers found that households with access to solar-powered irrigation were able to grow enough crops to consume several pounds of their own vegetables each week, a major upgrade of their diet, and earn another $7 to $8 from surplus crop sales each week. The payback time for the system was estimated at less than three years.

The program is also a huge boon to women, who traditionally tend the gardens, by cutting the time they spend watering by 50 percent, freeing them up to earn additional money.

"With the proper support," the researchers concluded, "successful widespread adoption of photovoltaic drip irrigation systems could be an important source of poverty alleviation and food security in the marginal environments common to sub-Saharan Africa."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

They say there's power in numbers. Well, PG&E has just proven that the cliche is literally true.

With the help of two thousand customers who participated in an experiment this summer, the utility has shown that voluntary reductions in electricity use, particularly for air conditioning, can reliably replace expensive and polluting peak power generators for balancing supply and demand on the electric grid.

As described previously in NEXT100, this pilot test of the utility's ability to work with customers to shape their demand in a timely and predictable fashion addressed what the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has called "the 'killer application' for the smart grid."

Programs to reduce peak loads can save money (by avoiding the need for generators that sit idle most of the year), reduce the risk of system overloads and cut down on air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Equally important, utilities could use such programs to support the integration of more renewable resources, by synchronizing demand with the fluctuations of wind and solar energy.

PG&E's voluntary SmartAC program provides customers with free radio-controlled thermostats or on-off switches that can be directed to turn down air conditioners during periods of peak energy demand, usually without sacrificing customers' comfort.

Until now, however, operators of the state grid could not be confident that the program would deliver load reductions quickly or reliably enough to replace traditional peak generation.

Working with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory this summer, PG&E recruited 2,000 SmartAC customers in Antioch, Fairfield and Fresno for a test.

PG&E also invested in sophisticated telemetry infrastructure to monitor, in near real-time, the impact of air conditioner controls on system loads. This was a critical addition to the SmartAC program, needed to prove its true value as a resource for balancing supply and demand.

Among the test customers, PG&E turned down their air conditioners for 15 minutes twice each weekday during the months of August and September--a total of 71 times.

The results were significant: "the average load reduction per device across all events was 0.65 [kilowatt] per device." That may not sound like much--but if extended across all 135,000 SmartAC-controlled devices, the program could replace as much as 80 MW of generation on most summer days, and up to 180 MW of generation during system peaks (equivalent to about two peak power plants).

Equally important, the pilot proved that the load reductions could be fast and reliable enough to meet the demanding requirements of state grid operators who must balance supply and demand.

Last but not least, despite the repeated curtailment of their air conditioning, almost nine in ten customers who took part in the pilot were satisfied with PG&E and only 17 percent even noticed that their air conditioning was affected.

The potential environmental and economic implications are huge.

As Reuters columnist John Kemp noted recently, if the California electric grid "could reduce demand on just the 2 percent of peak hours each year, it could avoid . . . the need to maintain more than 5,000 MW of idle [generating] capacity. [That] explains why demand response strategies designed to curb power use at peak periods have become one of the highest priorities for governments and system engineers on both sides of the Atlantic."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Look around the clean-tech sector--at companies trying to produce renewable energy, design better batteries or replace petroleum with biofuels--and you won't find too many newly minted billionaires. Most the companies are run by people with a passion for the environment who are sacrificing in the hope of someday making a difference as well as a profit.

But a few entrepreneurs, with a passion only for money, are cashing in on the environment in an altogether different way: by scamming the public.

In an end-of-year alert to investors, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) said, "It seems like everybody's going green these days--even fraudsters. However, the 'green' they are after is your money."

FINRA said it issued the alert "to warn investors about green energy investment scams that dangle the promise of large gains from investing in companies purportedly involved in developing or producing alternative, renewable or waste energy products."

Among other tips, FINRA warned investors never to "rely solely on information you receive in an unsolicited fax, email, text message or tweet--or in a blog post" (NEXT100 no doubt excepted). "It's easy for companies or their promoters to make glorified, unsubstantiated claims about new products, lucrative contracts, or the company's revenue, profits, or future stock price."

In a recent lawsuit, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged several defendants with raising $30 million from more than 300 investors in 12 fraudulent and unregistered securities relating to "green" investment opportunities, including a "carbon negative" housing development in Tennessee and what the promoters claimed was the largest biochar production operation in the world.

The really shameful thing about investor ripoffs, apart from the fleecing of individual victims, is the pall they cast over legitimate ventures seeking risk capital.

For example, many experts believe that production of biochar--a form of carbon created by heating organic material in an oxygen-deprived environment--could be a major contributor to the fight against global warming. 

Endorsed by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the North American Biochar Conference 2009 and in the U.S. Senate by a rare bipartisan group including Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, biochar could, in the words of environmental activist Bill Hewitt,

• (potentially) store billions of tons of carbon in soil for centuries;
• dramatically reduce agricultural waste, forest debris and some municipal solid waste, thus eliminating the production of greenhouse gases that result from their decomposition;
• generate energy to both power itself and a surplus for use in surface transportation or electricity generation; and
• greatly increase the productivity of agricultural soil, thus reducing the need for expensive and polluting fertilizers.

Bottom line? Don't invest your life savings in the next biochar company promising 1000% returns and brought to your attention over Twitter. But, at the same time, don't let the frausters close your mind to exciting new technologies that could give us a cleaner and more liveable world.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Happy cows are proof that ignorance is bliss. They burp up huge amounts of methane--a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide--without a trace of guilt over their carbon hoofprint.

As consumers of dairy products and beef, however, human beings can't claim ignorance. The cows we raise are the single biggest source of methane emissions in the United States, according to the EPA.

Fortunately, a few people are doing something about it. Researchers at James Cook University in Australia have determined that feeding nutritious dried algae to cows in place of traditional feed can slash bovine emissions of methane by 20 to 40 percent, according to a recent article in The Australian.

"These algae are about 20 per cent protein, and carry a lot of other vitamins and minerals, including salt," James Cook University nutritionist Tony Parker told Stock and Land magazine (recommended bedtime reading). "The cattle we've got came up and hooked straight into it, so it seems they like it."

Independent studies show that dairy cows fed with bio-algae concentrates produce 20 percent more milk than other cows, with higher protein and fat content.

In a win-win-win, the algae can be grown in aquaculture farms along with seaweed to clean effluent waters of nitrogen and phosphorous from agricultural runoff. Left untreated, such pollutants cause eutrophication, harming fisheries and ocean reefs. So-called "algal turf scrubbers" are now a mainstay of modern bio-remediation.

"I like to call it the reef and beef project because it has far reaching implications that come full circle: starting with seaweed, taking in the beef and aquaculture industries, and extending back out to the sea to help conserve the Great Barrier Reef," Parker added.

Posted by: Kory Raftery

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

Just weeks after world leaders came to an accord at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon is calling on the leaders of various countries to take immediate action on their pledges to stop global warming. "While I am satisfied that we sealed a deal, I am aware that the outcome of the Copenhagen conference, including the Copenhagen Accord, did not go as far as many have hoped," he said. "The leaders were united in purpose, but they were not united in action."

British billionaire Richard Branson wants to wage a war on global warming.  Agreeing with the position of many scientists and environmentalists - and upset by what he called the blasé attitudes of global governments - Branson claims businesses must bear the brunt of moving away from burning oil and fossil fuels. "There are some of us who believe that the problem of (global) warming is as bad as the First and Second World Wars combined," he said.  Branson's operation will start by addressing carbon emissions from a significant but little-known source that is not covered by any national or international regulations: global marine shipping.

New research claims global warming is the culprit when it comes to an alarming increase in cases of malaria on the slopes of Mount Kenya in Africa. Average temperatures in the region have increased by roughly four degrees in the last 20 years, allowing the disease to creep into communities at higher altitudes, where people have little or no immunity to the disease. Before the 1990's, when average temperatures never rose above 64.4 degrees, malaria was absent from the region.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

As we all prepare to get the Next 10 underway, we thought we'd take a look back on the decade that has passed. Here are several items that caught our attention:

It appears that clean energy and the environment have been top of mind for most speakers of the English language for the last 10 years. The Global Language Monitor has announced the top word of the decade was "Global Warming," beating out "9/11," while the top phrase was "Climate Change."  (You'll have to ask them why one counts as a word and the other as a phrase.)

Grist's look back on the top green stories of the '00s makes climate change the main focus of at least six. But its very top story of the decade is "Celebs and and movies and magazines and TV go green." Go figure. Evidently Cameron Diaz, Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio rate higher than Al Gore. 

Time magazine covers the Top 10 Green Ideas of 2009 as one of 50 top 10 lists--guaranteed to kill your appetite for this genre for a long time. Besides the usual suspects--the climate-change summit, cap-and-trade and fuel-efficiency standards--the magazine offers "General Motors Goes Bankrupt." That sounds more red than green to me.

And finally for a look ahead, Fast Company chronicled the Ten Best Green Jobs for the Next Decade. From farmer to solar panel installer or even green-tech entrepreneur it covers career paths that will position you as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Warning: the list is for idealists only--no pay information provided.